check this out. http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D40-Digital-Camera-Review/Conclusion.htm
digitalcamerainfo writes "The Nikon D40 is a disappointment. As Nikon has introduced entry-level DSLRs, the company has tended to make them a little more expensive and a little more capable than much of the competition. In this case, it hasn't. The D40's auto focus system is old-fashioned. It's a backward step, which is something that DSLR manufacturers do at their peril these days. The D40's color is clearly tuned to the snapshot market, which likes eye-popping color, but our results indicate that Nikon went over the top in saturating the reds. The D40 offers plenty of in-camera image editing, but that's not a distinction that provides a significant advantage over other entry-level DSLRs. The Nikon D40 is affordable with a retail price of $599 and a kit lens included, but there are other entry-level DSLRs with similar prices that offer more. "

Welcome to Nikonians!

Those are valid points, of course, but in my view Nikon have successfully targeted the D40 at the entry-level DSLR market. I think a lot of our d40-owning members would agree.

What Nikon equipment do you own, and do you like it? I can't tell from your profile, because you have left it blank

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

My wife has a D40 and has been nothing but thrilled at having it. She IS an entry level photographer who has mostly used point&shoot cameras up until this point but started getting the SLR bug after seeing all the stuff I do with my D50.

We probably would have gotten her a D50, just to make sure all the lenses were interchangable, but unfortunately we couldn't find any in our area and the shipping costs online seemed to be pretty insane. So we opted to get her a D40.

Like I said, she's been nothing but thrilled at the versatility compared to a P&S. Sure, it's tuned more towards entry level and the snapshotist, but for folk like my wife, that's just ideal.

I have the D50 and love it, a good friend has the D40 and is a huge fan.

Both are very good cameras for newbies such as ourselves. The only reason I opted for the 50 over the 40 is that it is a little bigger, so a little less fiddly to me, and I read it works with older lens models.

Why just quote verbatim from a single review? I could just as easily cut and paste from any one of a number of others that present a totally contrary view. If you want a representative summary, try this list, which includes the review you've highlighted:

http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d40-review-roundup-sample-photos/

I bought my D40 nearly 2 weeks ago having spending a considerable amount of time poring over all the reviews I could find - good, bad and indifferent - in order to weigh up its advantages and disadvantages compared with other contenders in its price bracket. You can't make a sound judgement based only on a single review; reviewers themselves will often have their own pet likes, dislikes and hidden agendas that influence their reports.

I had originally been tending towards the Pentax K100D, but based on all of the reviews I studied, including the one you posted, I opted for the D40 as offering the best performance for the money. Your reviewer obviously dislikes too much saturation in the reds. Ken Rockwell, on the other hand, can't get enough of it and boosts his even more. It's all subjective, but at least you get a choice with the D40 as you can set the colour mode to 1a, or even 11a, rather than the default 111a to get the level of colour saturation that meets your personal taste. Beyond that, most photo-editing sofware offers plenty of scope to adjust colour saturation and balance, so I don't see it as an issue.

You don't say if you have a D40 yourself. If so, what is your opinion of it. If not, are you thinking of getting one, else what prompted your posting?

Of course we can read bad and good things about every model of all kind of equipments. But only one thing is the truth: I was waiting for a equipment that could give me all the analog equipment Nikon F65 and Pentax P30 gave me but digital and with an afordable price(notice that I was waiting for every brand name not necessary for a Nikon model).

When I saw in a foto magasine that Nikon have just arrived with an equipment that had picture good results, with everything I was expecting for and with an afordable cost, I went to see Nikonians' opinion and other sites and magasines. Then I concluded that it was what I was looking for, and bought it 2 months ago.

Since then, I took 1988 pictures (family, motosport, landscape, flowers, our cat...) some good other not so good pictures (in my opinion of course) but I´m very pleased with my D40(meets all my expectations).

Probably ín the future I´ll need to grow but for the moment it´s enough.

Eyelash
(nikonmaniac)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>The D40's color is clearly tuned
>to the snapshot market, which likes eye-popping color, but
>our results indicate that Nikon went over the top in
>saturating the reds.

That's what color adjustments are for. Out of the box, does it deliver photos for the casual snapper market that are pleasing to the eye? Yes. Will a more discerning perspective push you to tone down the image settings? Possibly, and the camera can accommodate that.

>The Nikon D40 is affordable with a retail price of $599 and a
>kit lens included, but there are other entry-level DSLRs
>with similar prices that offer more. "

Is more always better? Only if more gives you what you need to better fulfill your picture taking objectives or improve the quality of your experience.

I love my D40. Sure, sometimes I find that being limited to three focus points is a bit of a bother. And the auto exposure and white balance are not really very good at what they're supposed to do, but on balance, this camera allows me to do everything I did with my PnS better, faster, and with greater confidence, flexibility, and precision. Will I step up in the Nikon line in the future? I suspect so. But for right now, I am snapping the hell out of this camera and taking photos of friends and family that will form the basis for memories and reminiscences decades from now when I am an "older" man.

Wilkey

For every negative comment/review of the D40 I can find five positive. We don't hear hardly any negative comments from the owners. I like mine, enough said.

I guess ignorance is bliss...I have not been disappointed in my D40. I read a ton of reviews before I bought and at that time had no loyality to Nikon. I almost bought a Cannon but now I am really glad I bought the D40. I have taken almost 4000 photos with it and the camera works fine and is easy to use. I never shoot in any of the auto modes and the camera allows for a lot of control. There are some things I would change but nothing is perfect, even the pro bodies.

I think the reality in todays world of digital photography is that there are no really bad cameras out there. The reviewer's are paid to pik nits and they find things that most people don't really care about and some thing that we do. If you have one of the major brands of cameras today you can take good photos...if you take the time to learn the camera and how to take good photgraphs. IMHO.

www.barrydudley.com

"Generalizations are made because they are Generally true"

visit my gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I have one beef with the D40. I am constantly changing the exposure compensation to get the exposure I'm looking for. In my opinion, the metering system is often fooled by different lighting situations. I'd love to leave it set at -0.7 EV or whatever it needed to consistently expose images properly, but that is just a pipe dream. I regularly adjust the exposure compensation from 0.0 to -2.0 to get the exposure I'm looking for.

Other than that, I have been generally thrilled with the image quality and the camera's ability to deliver great results.

HookdOnEDGlass

I have had my D40x for nearly a month now and am very pleased with the results I have been able to achieve, it’s such a light and compact carry everywhere package.

My only negative comment is I have to constantly alter the exposure compensation just like on my D80; my D70s seemed to get it right most of the time.

A step back do you think?

Do you think this is a software problem or just a poor meter, it seems others have found the same problem?

Thanks

Phil

congratulations on your first post.

-----------------------

While I have always been a little ticked at Nikon for seemingly removing every little feature they can from lower end cameras (you have to buy a D200 to get a Nikon with both MLU and DOF Preview - whereas Canon supplies them on their entry level models), it has not disuaded me from going with Nikons as I find they take better looking pictures and handle much better than the competition.

Scott Simon

Solutions Etcetera
http://www.solutionsetcetera.com

I think you have to remember reviews are opinions and as such I recommend when all the questions are asked and all the reviews read go and try one yourself, this is truly the only way to go.

Last from all accounts the D40 and the D40x do exactly what they are supposed to do take great pics at a price that many can afford and the gateway to Nikon's wonderful world of DSLR's.

So for all the happy D40 owners enjoy your great camera! Jim

Share, Learn and Inspire
www.nikonians.org



I will use film until the last roll and last lab are gone. Go Navy

I am a DSLR newbie and I can not imagine a better camera for myself - Nikon, great lens, excellent features, easy-to-read menu, superb shots even in Auto mode, light and small, yet feels right in your hand.. I love my D40!

---------------------------------
D90, 18-200VR, 50mm 1.8, SB-600

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mgur/

For one thing the D40 really stinks on low light. Im a virgin newbie here. So, what I think I really need is a SB-400 to enlighting me

Ken
D300 w/grip D80 w/grip Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Sigma 50-150 f2.8 Nikon 70-300,Nikon 50mm F/1.8 and Sigma 10-20mm.

Hi,

Whenever one of these posts come on line I immediately look at the "member since" figure. Then the number of posts.

That usually tells me all I need to know.

Always look on the bright side of life de dum de dum...........
Dave C
Scottish Nikonian
My Gallery

>Hi,
>
>Whenever one of these posts come on line I immediately look
>at the "member since" figure. Then the number of posts.
>
>That usually tells me all I need to know.

Agreed. This is clearly a troll, no need to feed.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

I've had digital cameras for years, but still consider myself a newbie.

I bought a D40 on the advice of Ken Rockwell, and well I'm very disappointed. Why? Because I can't pictures indoors w/o flash and my old Olympus bridge camera (C2100-UZ) could. What's more looking for a f/2.8 lens the cheapest I can find is about $400, which is 3/4's the price of the camera! Other than the total inability to take pictures in reasonably low light w/o flash, I like the camera. But as they say, "Besides that, Ms. Lincoln, how was the play?"

What Nikon could do to change me from a frustrated D40 owner to a very happy D40 owner would be to come out with a faster lens in the ~$250 range. Even if it's not a zoom lens, like say a F/2.8 24mm lens I'd be happy. And it can be plasticy, that's okay. But it's just impossible to shoot indoors w/o a flash on any Nikon lenses costing less than $1000 with the D40 (and still get autofocus)!!!

Had I gotten a D80, I could buy a f1.8 lens for $125! I feel cheated. Grrrr.

Perhaps a little more research at Nikonians rather than at Mr Rockwell's site, before buying...?

Check out our 3rd Party Lenses Forum, where there are quite a few threads about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM, which is nice and fast, and will AF on the D40.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

@Brian: Perhaps a little more research at Nikonians rather than at Mr Rockwell's site, before buying...?

Well if Nikonians where more findable on Google and better organized for research, maybe I would have! But that unfair admonishment is a bit late *now*, isn't it? '-)

@Brian: Check out our 3rd Party Lenses Forum, where there

I already did that, actually spent several hours there before I posted. I must add though, that it's signal-to-noise ratio was rather low. For example, try as I might, nowhere did I find a list of lens that work for the D40. Sure, I found that the D40 takes AF-S and AF-I lenses, which I also found on the Nikon site, but I didn't find anything that listed which 3rd party lenses work cause, after all, the 3rd party lenses don't label their lenses with AF-S or AF-I. And yes I know Sigma's HSM works, but some Sigma lenses work that are not HSM, and also it seems some Tamaron lenses work but they don't list internal motors in the specs and it is practically impossible to figure out which ones have them and which do not. And Nikonians doesn't improve on the situation as I've searched all threads that mention "D40" and none cover it.

@Brian: are quite a few threads about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM, which is nice and fast, and will AF on the D40.

That is what I have been looking at for several weeks, but it is a ~$400 lens (best street price), not a ~$250 lens, quality control is supposedly suspect on them, and it is not from Nikon which is what my rant was requesting. But I may be forced to go with it since there are so few options, which was the point of my post anyway.

That said, is there any f/2.8 zoom lenses in the <$500 category? This article <1> seems to imply that the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 has an internal motor (albeit a loud one.) Will it work?

BTW, I just bought a Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm because someone at the local photography meetup group told me it would work because of the IF designation. Consider me a bit miffed.


<1> http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review.html

>I already did that, actually spent several hours there
>before I posted. I must add though, that it's
>signal-to-noise ratio was rather low. For example, try as I
>might, nowhere did I find a list of lens that work for the
>D40.

That list is anchored in this Forum, which is where we expected D40 owners to look. here it is.

Sure, I found that the D40 takes AF-S and AF-I lenses,
>which I also found on the Nikon site, but I didn't find
>anything that listed which 3rd party lenses work cause,
>after all, the 3rd party lenses don't label their lenses
>with AF-S or AF-I. And yes I know Sigma's HSM works, but
>some Sigma lenses work that are not HSM, and also it seems
>some Tamaron lenses work but they don't list internal motors
>in the specs and it is practically impossible to figure out
>which ones have them and which do not. And Nikonians doesn't
>improve on the situation as I've searched all threads that
>mention "D40" and none cover it.

There is one Sigma lens without HSM that will AF on the D40/D40x - the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO EX DG OS. It has an internal motor, but not an HSM type.

Right now, there are no lenses from Tamron, Tokina or any brand other than Nikkor or Sigma that will AF on the D40/D40x.

>@Brian: are quite a few threads about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4
>EX DC HSM, which is nice and fast, and will AF on the D40.
>
>That is what I have been looking at for several weeks, but
>it is a ~$400 lens (best street price), not a ~$250 lens,
>quality control is supposedly suspect on them, and it is not
>from Nikon which is what my rant was requesting. But I may
>be forced to go with it since there are so few options,
>which was the point of my post anyway.

Yes, currently the Sigma 30mm is the ONLY option for a relatively cheap fast lens which will AF on the D40/D40x.

>BTW, I just bought a Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm because someone at
>the local photography meetup group told me it would work
>because of the IF designation. Consider me a bit miffed.

That's a shame. You need to work out whose advice to trust, I guess. Nikonians prides itself on accurate information and advice, so I hope you'll stick around

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

dont want much then fast glass for 125 quid ! id snap someones arm off for a tamron 28-75 2.8 for that money,

>> dont want much then fast glass for 125 quid ! id snap someones arm off for a tamron 28-75 2.8 for that money,

LOL! No, I paid US$357 for the tamron 28-75 2.8.

FYI, I've had fast glass on integrated cameras that only cost US$350, so I know it is possible to build a fast lense cheaply. Sure, it won't be pro quality, but most entry level D40 owners won't need lenses that last through tens of thousands of shoots.

> That list is anchored in this Forum, which is where we expected D40 owners to look. here it is.

THANK YOU. I searched and searched for that list but could not find it. And I am an advanced web user, so it was well hidden.

>> Right now, there are no lenses from Tamron, Tokina or any brand other than Nikkor or Sigma that will AF on the D40/D40x.

Thanks. Just to be sure, not the Tamron 17/50? It seemed like it would...

>> That's a shame. You need to work out whose advice to trust, I guess. Nikonians prides itself on accurate information and advice, so I hope you'll stick around

Clearly, I do! Well, now that I have Nikon, I will hang around, that is unless I find the advice untrustworthy, but that doesn't seem likely.

BTW, I'm ranting in hopes Nikon will hear, not to annoy other Nikonians.

> >> Right now, there are no lenses from Tamron, Tokina or any brand other than Nikkor or Sigma that will AF on the D40/D40x.

> Thanks. Just to be sure, not the Tamron 17/50? It seemed like it would...

No, every single Tamron (and Tokina) that is shipping for Nikon mount today uses a screwdriver AF mechanism. This relies on a motor in the body - which your D40 does not have. Ergo the 17-50/f2.8 will not AF on your camera. (Incidently, you may hear of Tamron or Tokina lenses with internal motors, but those are in Canon mount.)

Tamron has announced a new 70-200/f2.8 lens with an internal motor, but it hasn't shipped yet. And I rather doubt that it will be under $500.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

>> (Incidently, you may hear of Tamron or Tokina lenses with internal motors, but those are in Canon mount.)

Ah! That explains it. Thanks. (Damn I wish Tamron would explain that on their web pages!!!!)

>> Tamron has announced a new 70-200/f2.8 lens with an internal motor, but it hasn't shipped yet. And I rather doubt that it will be under $500.

For that range, I wouldn't expect $500. It might be worth looking at if in the <$700 range.

Mike,

It's too bad that you've been tripped up by some misinformation out there. It certainly pays to do your research before you buy, and certainly to get information from multiple sources and take it upon yourself to separate the signal from the noise. There is, unfortunately, a very popular web site out there which is widely cited by newbies as a great source of info, and seriously reviled by the experienced as a very annoying source of misinformation. It's not our policy to criticize other web sites which is unfortunate IMO because there's nothing here to prevent inexperienced people from praising the same web site, and this creates some seriously imbalanced information.

I can understand you being miffed if your experience isn't what you expected, especially since you've spent a lot of money, but directing your anger here (in fact blaming Nikonians for not being easy enough to find) is misplaced and won't do you much good. Everyone here managed to find this place, many of us during our pre-purchase research.

The autofocus thing is not hard to figure out, although many people seem to have trouble with it. Nikkor AF-S lenses will autofocus. Sigma HSM lenses will autofocus. Past this, Nikkor AF-I will but these are old and obsolete and rare, unlikely you'll encounter one of these. Other than this, there's one and only one lens that doesn't fit into these rules, it's an $1100 super-zoom the Sigma 80-400mm OS will autofocus. If you're not looking at this lens, then simply look for AF-S or HSM!

Specific to the D40, I think it's a disappointment that Nikon breaks a long tradition of lens compatibility with this camera to move its DSLRs down market. In this respect I agree with you, but also I don't want to step on the toes of D40 owners here who went into their purchase eyes wide open. I've been advocating people snatch up the remaining D50's on the market, IMO a steal at the same price as a D40. I think it's foolish to see D40(x) as a forerunner to a strategy of Nikon bringing a series of inexpensive AF-S fast primes, because a lot of us grow old waiting for Nikon to fill holes in their lineup, and it's probably more likely Nikon expects the vast majority of D40 owners to only ever use the kit lens. This weakness with the D40(x) has been so widely noted and debated it's really getting tiresome.

On another subject, I think it's really a shame that camera makers have decided to market SLRs to point-and-shoot customers as a way to take better photos. One fundamental difference between an SLR and P&S, besides the obvious TTL viewing & interchangeable lenses, is that the SLR has a larger sensor. A consequence of this is that you need longer lenses to get a similar field of view (typical P&S zoom is 5mm-20mm compare to 18-70mm equivalent on SLR) and the longer lens brings its own set of consequences - namely it's possible to isolate a subject against an out-of-focus background, and the longer lens requires a faster shutter speed when hand-held, which makes low light photography more difficult. Essentially what you've got with a D40 isn't a magic wand to take better pictures, you've got a tool which allows more creativity, but requires more know-how and skill to make it work. If this wasn't your intention when you bought it, then you may be happier with a P&S, and you've fallen victim to what's IMO a questionable marketing strategy.

I hope you find what you're looking for, but remember people here can help. We shouldn't be required to take the brunt of your anger though.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

>> It certainly pays to do your research before you buy, and certainly to get information from multiple sources and take it upon yourself to separate the signal from the noise.

Just so you know, I researched the camera purchase for about two weeks. I do hear what you are saying about the certain site though.

>> I can understand you being miffed if your experience isn't what you expected, especially since you've spent a lot of money, but directing your anger here (in fact blaming Nikonians for not being easy enough to find) is misplaced and won't do you much good. Everyone here managed to find this place, many of us during our pre-purchase research.

Don't assume I'm taking anger out on your forum nor should you need to get defensive. I was mentioning a fact about the search engine rankings and why I hadn't found Nikonians to be a good pre-purchase resource. If you are not open to constructive critcism then that's okay, but don't assume I'm angry at Nikions, that's unfair.

And the reason I even mentioned it was because Brian implied that I should have known better to look here first. My reply was trying to point out that, even though you've obviously got a great community here, you are not the center of the world and thus people who were previously unaware of you shouldn't be chastised for not asking for help here.

Frankly, I think I came across Nikonians during research but I didn't find it memorable (i.e. all that helpful.) The signal-to-noise ratio is really bad here, but then that's the nature of a forum vs. and informational site. If I want to read writups I look for the latter, if I want to ask questions I look for the former.

>> The autofocus thing is not hard to figure out, although many people seem to have trouble with it.

Very few things are hard to figure out for people who have significant expertise in the area. It *is* hard to figure out without immersing oneself and spending many hours learning and researching. The problem is, there is no easy way other than actually trying the lenses to know which will work, for sure (short of having an expert like you tell me, thank you.) Had I been able to find the list of lens that Brian gave me in his 2nd reply, I could have saved much trouble, but I looked and looked and could not find.

>> Nikkor AF-S lenses will autofocus. Sigma HSM lenses will autofocus. Past this, Nikkor AF-I will but these are old and obsolete and rare, unlikely you'll encounter one of these. Other than this, there's one and only one lens that doesn't fit into these rules, it's an $1100 super-zoom the Sigma 80-400mm OS will autofocus. If you're not looking at this lens, then simply look for AF-S or HSM!

And until the replies to this thread, nobody has stated it that clearly anywhere else on the web. (OTOH, your advice will be obsolute as soon as someone releases a new lense for Nikon because it *might* work with the D40, but unless it references the D40 specifically, we'll not know for sure.)

>> On another subject, I think it's really a shame that camera makers have decided to market SLRs to point-and-shoot customers as a way to take better photos.

As a newbie, getting my hands on a DSLR has made me want to become better. Without trying the D40, I'd never consider a D200. Now I eventually plan to get a better camera like the D200. So I think it is a good stepping stone and a good strategy for Nikon. But it sucks that they don't offer a reasonably-priced fast lens for me at this point.


>> One fundamental difference between an SLR and P&S, besides the obvious TTL viewing & interchangeable lenses, is that the SLR has a larger sensor. A consequence of this is that you need longer lenses to get a similar field of view (typical P&S zoom is 5mm-20mm compare to 18-70mm equivalent on SLR) and the longer lens brings its own set of consequences - namely it's possible to isolate a subject against an out-of-focus background, and the longer lens requires a faster shutter speed when hand-held, which makes low light photography more difficult.

My bridge camera w/a 2.8 lense was the same form factor as the D40, the lense was just not replaceable.

>> Essentially what you've got with a D40 isn't a magic wand to take better pictures,
you've got a tool which allows more creativity, but requires more know-how and skill to make it work.

I'm more than willing to learn, and I've tried everything to get good indoor shots and can't get the same quality (sharpness) my Olympus 2megapixel from 2000 can provide. I've read several books on taking pictures now, read many months of magazine articles. Still, I can't get indoor photos w/o flash. That's pathetic.

>> If this wasn't your intention when you bought it, then you may be happier with a P&S, and you've fallen victim to what's IMO a questionable marketing strategy.

I would be *really* happy if Nikon offered a set of inexpensive fast lens. Ones that could match my Olympus C2100UZ in speed.

>> I hope you find what you're looking for, but remember people here can help. We shouldn't be required to take the brunt of your anger though.

I think you are taking things far too personally. If you reread my message there was no anger directed toward Nikonians (well, a little sarcasm toward Brian for being presumptive.) No, my "anger" (and that's too strong a word) was directed toward Nikon. And my rant was more to have Nikon hear me and hope to release a lens in the future to meet this need as I know they pay serious attention to the online world.

Mike, can we try to take a step back and start again...? Your introduction to Nikonians has not gone as smoothly as we like to see, but I think that was at least partly because of the angry tone of your first post. If my first response wasn't appropriate, I apologise, but it was meant mostly in jest, hence the "winking smiley".

Nikonians is incontrovertibly the largest, and arguably the most friendly, helpful and reliable Nikon user website around. We're closing on 100,000 registered members, and anyone who's been here a while will agree that the answers members get are accurate and timely.

The site navigation works pretty well once you know where to look. We use "anchored threads" at the top of the relevant user group to hold frequently-accessed facts, which I believe is a pretty common feature in web forums. The list of compatible lenses was therefore anchored at the top of the D40/D50 Forum, where new D40 owners would be likely to visit first.

In your situation, a simple post asking if anyone can recommend an inexpensive fast lens that will AF on the D40 would have elicited the information that you were seeking much faster than jumping into this "the D40 is disappointing" thread did. Unless, of course, your main intention was to complain (that was another attempt at humour...!)

As far as your basic problem is concerned, I'm with Brian (blw) that it should easily be possible to get results from the D40 with the kit lens that are at least as good as those from your Olympus. Maybe some more experimentation with the settings will pay dividends. If you could post some examples (or links to them), we'd be better able to make some suggestions as to what the problem may be.

Best of luck!

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>> Mike, can we try to take a step back and start again...?

Certainly.

>> Your introduction to Nikonians has not gone as smoothly as we like to see, but I think that was at least partly because of the angry tone of your first post.

Respectfully, I think you are mischaracterizing my tone. It was not angry, it was frustrated. I have lots of experience in other forums, and I am aware that people on an enthusiast forum tend to take complaints about a product as being personal attacks even when they are not. Why did I post when I knew there was a possibility that some might get defensive? Read on.

>> If my first response wasn't appropriate, I apologise, but it was meant mostly in jest, hence the "winking smiley".

Accepted, and please accept my apology if I was at all out of line.

>> Nikonians is incontrovertibly the largest, and arguably the most friendly, helpful and reliable Nikon user website around. We're closing on 100,000 registered members, and anyone who's been here a while will agree that the answers members get are accurate and timely.

But please do acknowledge that in a world of 6 billion people, 100,000 is still a tiny number. IOW, you may know about Nikonians but that doesn't mean other people do.

When I google "Best DSLR Camera" I don't find Nikonians. When I google "Nikon", Nikonians is one page three, the 28th result (I typically never make it to the third page; why shoud I when I usually get great results before then?) When I google "Nikon D40" Nikonians doesn't even show up in the first 100 results (I didn't go any farther.) When I google "tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 review" Nikonians does show up as the 9th link <1> but it said nothing about the D40 and it subjectively speaking wasn't a review that caught my attention yet there were other reviews for the Tamron lenses that did catch my attention. FYI, in the past when I'm interested in cameras I go to dpreview.com.

So Nikonians may be the best resource, but either Nikonians has gone out of its way to hiding that fact from the majority of people who use Google, or more likely Nikonians has just not a poor job of seach engine optimization. The only reason I found Nikonians was I explicitly looked for a "Nikon forum." But I only found Nikonians AFTER I had all the difficulty, difficulty I never expected to have. (Please take this for what it is, which is objective constructive critcism.)

When I google "Nikon D40" what I do find as the first and second link is a review on dpreview.com and Ken Rockwell's site as the 5th link right after the two links to nikon.com. I'm sure that Nikonians is thriving forum with lots of great enthusiasts willing to offer great help, but I would respectively ask that you not admonish me for not having had the preknowledge of Nikonians nor for my lack of foresight to seek out something I was unaware of. If you must admonish anyone I'd suggest you admonish the Nikonians owners for doing such a poor job of search engine optimization!

And I'm not saying this in anger, I'm simply asking for some perspective on the situation.

>> The site navigation works pretty well once you know where to look.

I'll pause for a second and ask you, when you re-read that sentence, if its irony doesn't just jump out at you? That's like saying running a marathon is not hard if you've trained for it. Or that a final at MIT is not hard if you know the answers. And so on. (I could give a 1000 such examples.)

>> We use "anchored threads" at the top of the relevant user group to hold frequently-accessed facts, which I believe is a pretty common feature in web forums. The list of compatible lenses was therefore anchored at the top of the D40/D50 Forum, where new D40 owners would be likely to visit first.

I actually saw a reference to said "anchored threads" where the person didn't go to the effort to actually provide a link. I then searched and could not find such anchored threads. And perchance you think it is because of any potential lack of Internet/web skills, note that I study core web protocols like HTTP and publish this highly technical blog about URL design <2>. I also googled for said "nikon d40 lenses" on Nikonians <3> and found nothing. Actually, I was quite frustrated by it.

But please, rather than admonish me for not finding it consider that I might well be indicative of a lot of web users and consider that there are probably many others who have a similar experience, but never post and just go away. If you spend any time studying web usability like I do <4>, you'd know that my experiences are just the tip of the iceberg and maybe the better solution would be to figure out what's wrong and fix it.

IOW, why does Ken Rockwell's site score so much better on Google than Nikonians? Things that make you go "Hmmm..."

>> In your situation, a simple post asking if anyone can recommend an inexpensive fast lens that will AF on the D40 would have elicited the information that you were seeking much faster than jumping into this "the D40 is disappointing" thread did. Unless, of course, your main intention was to complain (that was another attempt at humour...!)

You make an assumption that I found Nikonians BEFORE I ran into the frustration with the lenses. I did not find Nikonians until after and trying to get that point across is why I am typing so much!

But yes, my primary intention *WAS* actually to complain. But please don't go on the defensive because my goal was to have my voice heard by someone who could make the situation better for everyone; Nikon, and to a lesser extent Tamron and Sigma. I was not complaining at Nikonians nor should you take it as such.

I know for a fact that Nikon USA marketing pays a lot of attention to social media on the web as I have a blogger friend who got a D70 loaner from Nikon because he complained on his blog that he needed a camera NOW but the D80 was three months away so he might have to get a Canon. So I'm pretty sure that a thread labeled "The Nikon D40 is a disappointment" will get Nikon's continued attention primarily because they know there is a good chance a lot of people who are evaluating a D40 will potentially find this thread and read it. By making my complaint explicit (i.e. that you can't take clear pictures indoor in reasonable light w/o a flash) *and* by recommending to Nikon how they could solve the problem (i.e. by releasing an inexpensive f/2.8 lens) I figure the chance of them actually prioritizing releasing such a lense is better than if I said nothing at all.

So asking for a lense recommendation wouldn't have achieved my objective, i.e. getting Nikon to hear loud and clear that this is a real problem that they need to address, post haste. (I also plan to blog about this very thing in hopes to get Nikon's further attention.)

>> As far as your basic problem is concerned, I'm with Brian (blw) that it should easily be possible to get results from the D40 with the kit lens that are at least as good as those from your Olympus. Maybe some more experimentation with the settings will pay dividends.

I've been experimenting with setting for three months now. I've spent several hundred dollars on books and magazines, reading all I can, I've gone to photography meetups and asked for expert advice, I've gone to the local professional photographer's store where they rent lenses, have gone out shooting with several pro photographers, and have been to many indoor events with both cameras, and in low light the Nikon can't hold a candle to my old Olympus (no pun intended.)

>> If you could post some examples (or links to them), we'd be better able to make some suggestions as to what the problem may be.

I appreciate that. I will do so as soon as I have time to find some good side-by-side examples (Nikon vs. Olympus.) I'm currently way behind for a client (shouldn't even be spending so much time on the forum) so it'll have to wait until I get a breather. But here is one good example of not being able to get a clear picture even at ISO 1600 <5>.

-Mike

<1> http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tamron/2875-f28/2875-1.html
<2> http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/
<3> http://www.google.com/search?q=site:nikonians.com&q=nikon+d40+lenses
<4> http://www.useit.com/
<5> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=503084704&size=o&context=photostream

Wow - long reply (which I did read in full)!

No-one is saying that Nikonians is perfect, Mike, and as I tried to explain you were not being "admonished", rather being given some light-hearted advice (along with an answer to your actual question).

Maybe it's just me, but when I Googled "nikon forum", Nikonians was the first result. By the way, we have our own Nikoscope search engine, which gives more focused results than simply using Google.

Thanks for posting those links. Number 5 is interesting. It's taken at 1/20th second, wide open, at ISO 1600, so I'm not surprised it's a little fuzzy. This may be an AF issue, by the way - depending on your AF settings there is not much contrast to lock on to. Another factor is that, used at the same aperture the Olympus will have greater depth of field because of its much smaller sensor, which helps to hide focus errors.

But as Brian has tried to explain, with your Olympus you'd have had around 1 stop advantage in maximum aperture, but 2 stops less ISO to play with, so you'd have needed to shoot at 1/10th second at ISO 400 in that same situation. At that speed, you'd have been likely to get even more motion blur and camera shake than you did with the D40. A VR lens would help reduce camera shake, but would not help with the subject movement.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>> Maybe it's just me, but when I Googled "nikon forum", Nikonians was the first result.

It's not just you, I got the same result for "Nikon forum" (which is how I found Nikonians.) But that's not what I said. I said that when I googled "Nikon" or "Nikon D40", Nikonians doesn't show up. So you are assuming I chose to Google "nikon forum", which I didn't. Frankly I find participating in forums very time consuming and tiring because, when you ask as question you then have all the people tell you why you shouldn't want to do it the way you want to do it (this is forums in general, not Nikonians in specific) and those debates just take forever. It takes for less time just to read a review.

OTOH, I do value forums and participate in them frequently, but I know that they take lots of effort and I can't afford to invest that level of effort into everything I do in life. For example, my comment on this thread has now consumed several hours of my time. I'm not complaining, just pointing out the tradeoffs. Posting a question on a forum can be a time black hole, so I don't always do it, especially if there are numerous articles and reviews on the subject within range of a google.

>> By the way, we have our own Nikoscope search engine, which gives more focused results than simply using Google.

Again, that makes an assumption someone already knows about Nikonians. The whole point of my reply is that is not a very good assumption in general.

>> Thanks for posting those links. Number 5 is interesting. It's taken at 1/20th second, wide open, at ISO 1600, so I'm not surprised it's a little fuzzy. This may be an AF issue, by the way - depending on your AF settings there is not much contrast to lock on to. Another factor is that, used at the same aperture the Olympus will have greater depth of field because of its much smaller sensor, which helps to hide focus errors.
>> But as Brian has tried to explain, with your Olympus you'd have had around 1 stop advantage in maximum aperture, but 2 stops less ISO to play with, so you'd have needed to shoot at 1/10th second at ISO 400 in that same situation. At that speed, you'd have been likely to get even more motion blur and camera shake than you did with the D40. A VR lens would help reduce camera shake, but would not help with the subject movement.

Subject movement is not the issue. I perfectly accept subject movement issues. What I don't accept it lack of sharpness on non-moving objects when I try and I have tried and tried to get consistently sharp focus, which I can get with the Olympus w/o thinking but can rarely get with the D40 no matter how hard I try.

You can explain to me why the Olympus shouldn't be better, but I just look at the results and they don't support your explanations. OTOH, if you have suggestions for how I can improve with the D40, I'm all ears.

BTW, thanks for the help you are trying to provide. If I sound ungrateful, it's not that.

Mike,

I sensed a lot of anger and animosity in your post, perhaps wrongly believed it was directed at us. If my counter-response was too defensive I hope you can let it slide.

I basically agree with your sentiment about Nikon not having the lens lineup to support this camera. These lenses may never exist in the price range of the excellent AF-D primes. I suggest you give the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM a second look. Or consider dumping the D40 for a D50 or D80, which is what I've been advocating since the D40 was introduced. IMO D40 is an excellent camera for people who want to take outstanding vacation snapshots. Most people who find there way here start to want lenses like the $100 50mm f/1.8D, or a host of fast primes under $400. If you want AF on these lenses, then you're pretty much stuck with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Let's go back to the root of the problem.

You say that the D40 can't take pictures indoors, but your old C2100 could. Perhaps that's just because of how you are using the D40. Here's why I think that:

- Your lens is the 18-55 whose aperture range is f/3.5 to f/5.6. The C2100UZ has a lens that Olympus says is f/2.8 - f/3.5, which means that it is a half stop faster at the short end and at most one and a half stops faster at the long end. (That is, f/2.8 is half a stop faster than f/3.5, and f/3.5 is a stop and a half faster than f/5.6.)

- The ISO range on your camera goes to 1600 and has an option for another stop past that (ie ISO 3200) with degraded performance. The C2100UZ has only 100, 200 and 400. If you set (or allow) the D40 to use ISO 1000, which is a stop and a half faster than ISO 400, you will have achieved at least parity in light-gathering ability. In other words, you have a lens that is at most 1.5 stops slower, and you can easily set your ISO to 2 stops faster (ISO 1600). This is just physics, it has nothing to do with Nikon vs Olympus or whatever.

- Some will jump up and claim that this isn't equivalent, because the ISO 1600 will produce a lot more noise than ISO 400. And that is a true statement if all other things are equal, for example it is certainly the case that ISO 1600 on the D40 will yield more noise than ISO 400 on the D40. However, in this comparison, the C2100UZ has a sensor that's about a tenth the size of the one in the D40, and that makes a big difference. Suffice to say that I have a C2100Z and it produces similar noise at ISO 400 as my D100 does at ISO 1600 - and your D40 is better at this than my D100.

So... if you're shooting indoors, set your camera to ISO 800 or ISO 1600 and you will be able to do far more with your D40 and your current lens than you did with your old C2100UZ. And you'll be able to get higher quality for the things you used to do. (The obvious difference being the 380mm equivalent telephoto.) If you dislike changing the ISO all the time, I believe the D40 has an option somewhere in the menus called auto-ISO, which allows the camera to set ISO as appropriate given some boundaries.

One more point here... an f/2.8 lens may not do what you expect either. As noted above, it is only a half-stop faster than your current lens at 18mm, and it's two stops (f/4, f/5.6) faster than your current lens at 55mm. You can easily change ISO to account for that difference. Of course, ISO 1600 at f/2.8 allows you more options that ISO 1600 at f/5.6, and moreover if you are using f/2.8 for controlling depth of field, that doesn't happen with an f/5.6 lens at any ISO.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Thanks for the detailed info. However, I have explored all the options you mention. I've researched exposure, f-stops, etc. ad-nauseum by now. I've tried at 1600 and the noise is just too high. I've tried at 800 and I can't get a fast enough shutter. Honestly, I'm amazed in hindsight that the 2100 is so good, but I can't believe that Olympus bridge could be that much better than the Nikon DSLR, and 6 years earlier.

Maybe I got a lemon D40?

And if I'm not mistaken, f3.5 is 2/3rds, not 1/2 smaller than f2.8, right? <1>


<1> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Stops.2C_f-stop_conventions.2C_and_exposure

Well, I don't have a D40, but I'm very surprised. I have several other DSLRs - all older than yours - and the noise just isn't a factor compared to my older Olympus. Do you by any chance have noise reduction turned off on your D40?

Yeah, I guess you're right about 2/3rds vs 1/2 stop.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

>> Well, I don't have a D40, but I'm very surprised. I have several other DSLRs - all older than yours - and the noise just isn't a factor compared to my older Olympus. Do you by any chance have noise reduction turned off on your D40?

Nope, Noise Reduction is ON.

Well, maybe I got a really well manufactured Olympus and a really poorly manufactured Nikon?

BTW, which Olympus do you have?

Same one you have - C2100UZ.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

One more comment:

> it's just impossible to shoot indoors w/o a flash on any Nikon lenses costing less than $1000 with the D40 (and still get autofocus)!!!

While I agree with the sentiment, it's strictly speaking not very true. The 18-200 AFS VR, which runs about $750, will shoot practically in the dark on the D40, due to the combination of the VR in the lens and ISO 1600 in the camera. (f/3.5, ISO 1600 at, say, 1/8th sec is a dark room indeed, probably one with only a single light, and probably not right near the subject.) And of course, being an AFS lens, it does AF on the D40.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

>> While I agree with the sentiment, it's strictly speaking not very true. The 18-200 AFS VR, which runs about $750, will shoot practically in the dark on the D40, due to the combination of the VR in the lens and ISO 1600 in the camera. (f/3.5, ISO 1600 at, say, 1/8th sec is a dark room indeed, probably one with only a single light, and probably not right near the subject.) And of course, being an AFS lens, it does AF on the D40.

Is that the new ~$250 lens you are referring to? If so, I own it, and haven't found that to be the case. OTOH, I don't really find 1600 be to acceptable, so maybe that's why.

BTW, you can get clear shots with 1/8th of a second? Sadly, I can't.

No, I was referring to the $750 18-200 AFS VR.

With VR, you can definitely get clear shots of non-moving subjects at 1/8th sec. The VR system often is able to get you 3 stops of additional shutter speed, and Nikon claim 4 stops. Other folks seem to get 4, but I don't. Still, 3 stops is 8x faster, so 1/8th with VR is a lot like 1/60th without it. It is pretty easy to do 1/60th with a 30 or 50mm focal length.

Note that VR is not perfect. It seems to help me about 3/4s of the time - ie in the above case, maybe 3 out of 4 come out decently sharp at 1/8th, and none of them come out as well as if I had used a tripod or flash. Still, 75% at 1/8th is better than probably 2% without it.

And if your subject moves, VR fails 100% of the time...

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Yeah with VR you still need a steady hand at the higher end. But At the low end you can get some decent shots. Personally I was disapointed when Nikon dicontinued the D50 instead of making an upgrade for it. Truthfully they could have left it the same and, dropped its price (since they have made their money back) and, sold the next version between the older and, D80s price. While I uderstand pulling some of the upper P&S market into Dslrs'. I cant understand the other half of their idea of making what I consider a neutered D50. Also to me Nikon has seemed to give up on the P&S market as well. Or seems that way to me.

I shoot therefore, Iam.
http://joves.smugmug.com

I have the 55-200mm VR lens. Do you expect that the VR on it would be as good as the 18-200mm, or no?

BTW, you quote $750, but I haven't been able to find one (in stock) for less than ~$900... '-)

The 55-200VR should be similarly effective, although as I said, it has limits. No matter what the focal length I don't think it's viable below about 1/5th to 1/8th sec, but above those speeds it does a pretty good job.

The 18-200 is usually out of stock at the big retailers, but right now a massive shipment apparently just landed and if you check with smaller retailers you stand a pretty good chance of finding one. B&H had them for a couple of days earlier this week and KEH had them just yesterday.

I got mine at a local retailer for $729. The suggested retail price was originally $699 and has now gone up to $749.

There is a reason that they sell like hot cakes...

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

I take it back - KEH still has them for $749 right now. Be sure to look in the *digital* store.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Thanks, but unfortunately $750 is out of my price range at the moment.

BTW, I am going to try the Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 to see how it works, at $240 it's more in my current price range.

For what it's worth, I've had no problems with indoor pics on the kit lens. Being very new to the concepts of basic photography, I used "P" mode until I grew more comfortable using the camera. Now for indoor pics I stick with "A" priority to get the look I want. And I've also put the kit lens on the shelf for the 18-200 VR lens. Again, still no problems with indoor pics using ambient lighting. If it's my godaughter running around, I slap on the SB-400 flash and go to work.

Not trying to stir up trouble, but my experience has been nothing but possitive for the 3 months I've owned the D40. I hope to hone in on my skills and eventually out grow this camera and step up to a D200 (or whatever its future equivelent will be. The D40 is a terrific learning tool for me and I may not have gotten any dSLR if it wasn't for this model (the Rebel XT wasn't nearly as intuitive in my opinion).

Anyway, that's my $0.02

>> For what it's worth, I've had no problems with indoor pics on the kit lens. Being very new to the concepts of basic photography, I used "P" mode until I grew more comfortable using the camera. Now for indoor pics I stick with "A" priority to get the look I want. And I've also put the kit lens on the shelf for the 18-200 VR lens. Again, still no problems with indoor pics using ambient lighting. If it's my godaughter running around, I slap on the SB-400 flash and go to work.

Thanks. Can you post some indoor pics? Maybe I got a lemon...? If so, anyone know how I go about determining if I did?

Morning!

Simply for idle curiosity, I plugged "nikon camera information" into Google. Nikonians info was the 3rd and 4th link.

Just to throw another idea out there....manual focus isn't all that tough with a bit of practice. I've got a 50mm 1.8 lens, and use it often inside on aperture priority. I'm taking pics of dogs, who pretty much refuse to sit still, and my house has NO overhead lighting in most of the rooms...and this setup works.

I got my lens here, in the for sale forum....less than $100.

>> Simply for idle curiosity, I plugged "nikon camera information" into Google. Nikonians info was the 3rd and 4th link.

Checking Google's Keyword tool <1>, you'll find almost nobody searches on that set of keywords. Search for "Nikon" and "Nikon D40" you'll get a lot.

Also, see #10 on <2> for "Jakob's Law of the Web User Experience: "Users spend most of their time on other sites, so that's where they form their expectations for how the Web works." This also applies to searches meaning it's more important to optimize for keywords that people use than ones they do not.

>> Just to throw another idea out there....manual focus isn't all that tough with a bit of practice.

Thanks, but manual focus is not for me. At least not for anytime soon.

<1> http://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal
<2> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/991003.html